At 16:10 13/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>So, I am really saying that core doesn't do much. You non-core folks
>aren't missing anything.
>
The issue here is transparency: doing the right thing as well as being seen
to do the right thing.
When someone devotes hours of time to PGSQL for no recompense, their
motives are generally not questioned. So when someone makes a design
decision, the motive is assumed to be because it is best in the long term
for the project. As soon as someone is paid to do work, their motive is (at
least partly) to get paid. As Tom has already said, this has the potential
to distort scheduling priorities.
The fear is that this may distort other priorities - hence why increased
transparency in decision making is important. If Bruce, Tom & Jan make a
design decision, then chances are it's going to be pretty good. The problem
is it will/may be seen as a GB decision.
As I said in an earlier post, any and all drive for increased transparency
has to come from GB; they must now be aware of the issues and potential
risks. Certainly planning to contribute *all* source is a very good sign
since it will drastically reduce the chances of making compromising design
decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/